They are mega-corporations. They always do what ever the hell they want, certainly absent your input. Did you really believe they don't do what ever they want, because that's pretty damned naive.
Promoting medical misinformation or even health misinformation should be critically judged. Alternative health companies are rubbing their hands together.
The next Drain-o chug challenge "accident" is inevitable, at this rate.
That sounds great in theory. In practice, "misinformation" ends up being defined as anything the govt finds inconvenient.
Or it is selectively applied so that when misinformation comes from all sides of the political spectrum, only people the govt doesnt like (in the more general sense) get kicked off platforms.
What is considered "misinformation" depends on whatever the censoring authority in question (e.g. Facebook or YouTube or some news website) _believes_ to be misinformation.
For example, in 2020, the WHO(!) Twitter account literally tweeted that masks don't work. That same statement would have been considered medical misinformation by a different authority.
Another example: the theory that Covid leaked from a lab in Wuhan which was known to do gain of function experiments on coronaviruses was painted as a wacky conspiracy theory by most of the mainstream media, despite the fact that many respectable sources (e.g. the CIA) later concluded that it has a significant amount of plausibility versus the alternative Wuhan wet market hypothesis which required that the virus somehow arrived there from a bat cave more than a thousand kilometres away.
So now we know the reality. An employer, Disney, felt an employee, Kimmel, was damaging their business, let's not forget the point of an employee is to make money for their employer, and as a result took corrective action with the employee. Who was not fired. If a waiter at a restaurant was offending the customers, he would have been fired. Kimmel was treated very kindly and will continue to receive his paycheck. Looks like the wailing about free speech missed the mark
Irrelevant. You were arguing this was an ordinary part of business, and the point is that it clearly isn’t.
Now you’re moving on to how much it matters that the government made such a demand. It matters very much, because it is unprecedented and outrageous. But I was only replying to your partial account, which left out the most crucial aspect of the entire affair.
> It matters very much, because it is unprecedented and outrageous
It isn't unprecedented, Biden administration did that as well. This is normal for the US government, they never were strict with free speech they always pressured corporations to censor.
Companies are driven by profits, but their decisions are usually based on legalities. I think their knee-jerk reaction to pull Kimmel was due to what might happen, or what the government was threatening to do. That doesn't amount to damages, legally. However, if they bring Kimmel back, and the government follows through on its initial threats, then that does amount to damages for which they can sue the government.
I'm sure Disney is aware that there will be consequences to reinstating Kimmel. Maybe their proposed merger won't go through. Maybe something else—but they will be punished by the administration for it.
They didn't ignore it. The show was suspended for several days. Over some really tame remarks. The warning is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.
Disney was probably inundated with demands from other on air talent to reinstate the employee. They then made the calculated judgment that maintaining good employee relations was on balance better served by putting the employee back on the assembly line. This is all usual and standard business. Anyone on here that has ever worked a job has contract that says what they can and cannot do while in the employ of the company.
Even if a man is dying of cancer that does not justify the government murdering him.
The Trump appointed FCC head, who is currently evaluating multiple multi-billion dollar requests, said about Kimmel 'we can do this the hard way or we can do this the easy way'.
A little late on this story, it all happened last year and the years before. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, when the govt floods the world with free money, the price of goods goes up.
Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to bet on renewables and our electricity rates are skyrocketing. If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.
It's not just subsidies, it's also permitting and any other roadblocks they can manage. This isn't just economic or political, it's a weird personal crusade.
Whatever cost it is, I highly doubt it's cheaper to cancel projects that are well underway without recouping any benefits at all, in some cases over the objections of local customers, without an alternative in place with environmental and financial analysis to support it.
Otherwise you're just burning money without an alternative to meet increasing demand (which is likely why costs are increasing and why the additional supply is being built).
Well, not in California where there is both a residential solar mandate assuring new distributed supply and where solar already reaches over 100% of demand at peak; adding new utility-scale solar doesn't make a lot of sense even if it is cheap.
Politics and corruption. The generation cost is low, but the government backed monopoly folds all kinds of distribution, deferred maintenance, fire damage, and political pet projects into the retail price. It sucks.
According to the article Trump is trying to ban new solar developments. Suppliers are building tons of solar but they can't do so if the government makes it illegal.
But the Biden administration which introduced the IRA subsidies also jacked up tariffs on solar panels, increasing the price of these projects. Would many of these businesses been viable if neither subsidies nor tariffs had been introduced? Given the declining cost of PVs over time, would they have become viable eventually?
Isn't this the group that had the not that monitored chats and would warn on any use of language that was insufficiently adherent to the woke paradigm?
Absolutely correct. The only reason to resists transparency and accountability is if you have something to hide. The american public is smart enough to know that you don't make a $200,000 per year salary and amass a wealth of multi millions. It was a fun ride for the inside while it lasted, its time to move on now.
I believe we are at the end of the line for the concept of "fact checking". The statement "These Wildfires are Caused by California’s Mismanagement of Forest Lands" is qualitative, there is no true or false to that. Gov Newsom may believe they did a wonderful job, others may disagree. But certainly when one side says and any dissenting view is a "LIE" that is a good marker that they are trying to shut down open discussion because they have something to hide. Not a good look in the middle of a crisis to be shutting down dialog. Let the voters decide if the current government did a good job or mismanaged, but to say that disagreement with current power structures is a LIE does not work anymore.
